Is rape that big a deal?

Rape is seen as the worst of all crimes. "Sex crimes" news stories flash, oh the humanity. But I have been wondering if they are as big a deal as they have been made out to be.

For example, if a women were tied up and her arms were slowly pounded into mush with a hammer, piece by piece, the ends of fingers first then the rest of the finger... all the way up the arm to the shoulder, slowly for 8 hours. She would be awarded no special shields at trial, no special services. No assault crimes organizations for victims of assault.

But if a man sticks his penis into a women's vagina against her will and it lasts for only 5 minutes, she is protected by rape shield laws and is awarded all kinds of protections. It seems as though protection the vagina is more important than protecting the rest of a person. Also, I have seen plenty of women doing crazy things with their vaginas on video. The only difference between those women and rape victims is one word "consent". So why does consent turn an act some woman would normally perform into this horrible, terrible, life scarring event?

If I got punched in the face and the attacker ran off, yeah it would hurt for a few days , yeah I'd be upset, but then I would get over it. I wouldn't need shield laws to protect my identity from the attacker. I wouldn't need counseling.

I think being sexually assaulted is a pretty big deal for many people, but having been sexually assaulted I also think there is a large element of hysteria in the media and elsewhere when compared to other brutal assaults, and when comparing how sexual assaults against women are portrayed vs. those against men -- especially when women are those doing the assaulting.

"The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master." -- Ayn Rand

" Police should be outnumbered and afraid of citizens in a free society. Anything else is merely a police state." - The Gonz

It is an interesting question. Dan Lynch once called it "assault with a friendly weapon."

So.....why should it be a crime at all? Should it be a crime if it happens to men? If men rape men, should that be overlooked as no real problem? After all, it's less of a problem for men: you can't get pregnant from it.

The only conclusion I've come up with is that rape has to be made the most henious crime possible (when committed against a girl or woman) because it threatens women's source of power.

If it was really about the pain and suffering of the victim, the rape of men and boys would carry an equivalent penalty, rather than not even being recognized as rape in some jurisdictions as is the case now.

I don't think you'll get many takers on that one Phebe. I bet a lot of people would agree with destroying the double standards, and unequal protections that don't exist in any other types of cases in criminal law though.

"The man who speaks to you of sacrifice, speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the master." -- Ayn Rand

" Police should be outnumbered and afraid of citizens in a free society. Anything else is merely a police state." - The Gonz

Its not that rape isnt a big deal, its that feminists demand special rights for women under almost all circumstances. Their special rights campaign infringes on the rights of heterosexual men and women and ignores the cause by treating a symptom as most big government advocates usually do. This campaign has deliberately clouded the issues with hysteria and subterfuge and rendered the solution to be worse than the problems theyre trying to solve in the first place.

What good fortune for government that people do not think." Adolph Hitler

"Where madness rules the absurd is not far away."

We must not make the mistake of thinking that all those who eat the bread of dictatorship are evil from the first; but they must necessarily become evil....The curse of a system of terror is that there is no turning back; neither in the large realm of policies nor the 'smaller' realm of everyday human relationships is it possible for men to retrace their steps." - Dr. Hans Bernd Gisevius (1904-1974)

Um-hum....threatens her value to the patriarchal society: her possession of her own sexuality, which she can transfer to husband or boyfriend, for instance, is another perspective, but in general, I like your thinking, typhonblue.

I was talking this over with my husband one night when you all wouldn't discuss it -- I think you thought I was setting you up, which I'm not. Thinking of Kobe Bryant, trying to parse this issue out ---

1) if there is injury, then assault laws can properly be applied and are anyway for children and presumably attacks on men, sexual assault, grievous assault, etc. So that is not the problem issue.

2) suppose there is NOT injury? And no witnesses, of course, as is usual with all crime. Well, you could say there could be disease or unwanted pregnancy, a severe indirect injury in both cases to the woman. Okay ---

3) suppose there is no injury, no witnesses, no disease, no pregnancy?

Did a crime occur?

The man invariably without exception (Kobe) says, "It was consensual." She says no, it was not. But there is no injury. And no proof. And often I think the man really thinks it was consensual in some sense! He persuades himself that "she really wanted it." So ---------------------

Was a crime committed, or not?

Does a woman who allows herself to get caught by a man like this simply have to get over it as best she can? That is true with other types of assault, notably verbal: if somebody honks at me as soon as a light turns red I am very likely to get right out and give him or her hell for it, and nobody is going to charge me with verbal abuse ----- that person will have to get over it and probably won't be honking so much anymore, either. Verbal abuse is an example of aggression that is not legally forbidden; should rape be the same? If people can catch me, should they get to use my body as they want as long as they don't do me an injury?

My husband cut through all this by saying that it's an issue of control of one's own body. That, he said modestly, somebody could come up and pinch his cheek at work, but he wouldn't like that. The law says we get to control access to our own bodies and they aren't for other people's use.

I suppose the solution is to apply it to men: would it be okay for men to use other men's bodies for their own gratification, as long as there isn't injury? If the answer is no for men, then it should be no for women, too.

The law says we get to control access to our own bodies and they aren't for other people's use.

I agree 100%. But given that I would say that keeping an innocent man in prison is ultimate violation of his human rights uncomparable to anything else. Ultimate violation in every day he stays there and every time he is strip-searched. If he is innocent it is his right not to be in there.

That is why I would say that if there is no proof beyound a reasonable doubt -- the matter should be settled in civil court.

Unfortunatly it will be long until men realise how much their rights are violated and will campaign for laws which protect their rights.

Phebe- Knock off the stereotyping when you make a reference to "men". Qualify your point by defining which men youre refering to and dont use the term "patriarchy" so loosely around here. There are feminazi's in office in this country too and theyve been in power for years. The so-called "patriarchy" is a faulty stereotype that doesnt accurately define anything.

What good fortune for government that people do not think." Adolph Hitler

"Where madness rules the absurd is not far away."

We must not make the mistake of thinking that all those who eat the bread of dictatorship are evil from the first; but they must necessarily become evil....The curse of a system of terror is that there is no turning back; neither in the large realm of policies nor the 'smaller' realm of everyday human relationships is it possible for men to retrace their steps." - Dr. Hans Bernd Gisevius (1904-1974)

I think this answer is more complex considering how broadly we have defined "rape".

First off, rape is wrong. Nope, this aint some quickie disclaimer, this is the truth.

But, why is it wrong? Well, let's start with Phebe's answer: It's a woman's value based on a patriarchial value of the woman's chastity.

WRONG Phebe. I don't know hardly a guy, and I only say hardly because it's POSSIBLE, who will NOT marry a woman because she's not a virgin.

This aint the 1300's (or whatever time frame you are referencing).

So, Phebe failed to have answer. Why because she can't seem to get beyond the timeframe of her formative years. So, let's the rest of use try to find the answer.

Why is rape wrong?

It's wrong on a lot of levels:1) It's HER body. But it's also HIS body if HE is raped. So for either person to have their sexuality, their body, and their mind assaulted is wrong.2) It's wrong Biblically.3) It's wrong LEGALLY.4) Golden rule says: it's wrong.

But, feminiazis have had the term rape so broadened that it's almost meaningless. We've read the stories (from newspapers, not second hand) about how a yes "meant no", or "I should be studying" meant "no", or how yes was no because she had the same amount of alcohol in her as he did. That's why the question can even arise.

Steven

'Watch our backs at home, we'll guard the wall over here. You can sleep safe tonight, we'll guard the door."

Isaiah 6:8"Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!"

The Human Rights Council released a report on male rape in prison titled Hard Time: Male Rape in Prison. Check it out if you get the chance. Men are twice as likely to be raped than women. Men are totured in prison and nobody cares.

:2up: This is what feminist think of abused men.

:bareit: This is what feminist wish to do to Kobe Bryant. They want him to go to a sex offender program.

A lot of men have pointed out this prison problem. I think it would be good for the whole society if that were stopped. It could be done, too. We are a rich enough country for the security and phyical plant to support that kind of imprisonment. Not my business, I guess, but it seems to me it would be a good male rights activist cause.

why is [rape] wrong? Well, let's start with Phebe's answer: It's a woman's value based on a patriarchial value of the woman's chastity.

Actually, that states that point better than I did, a good expression of the technical feminist answer. It's not actually why I think rape is WRONG, though, it's why there are so many high-voltage special provisions around the crime. That was the point made by the thread-parent, and it is true. A bar fight may do more actual damage, but rape trial provisions, penalties, etc. may be special and higher.

That isn't why rape is wrong; it's wrong because people should be able to control what others do to their bodies, that's all. People should be able to consent or say no. Men and women both.

The question is, are the special provisions around the crime of rape outmoded now that, indeed, the value of the life of a non-virgin woman does not any longer drop to zero in modern America, at least. (It does in Iran, but that is their problem, not ours.)

So what does control and consent about our own bodies mean? Men are complaining that we aren't clear sometimes, I think. Or that something about the interaction isn't fair.

"I should be studying" meant "no", or how yes was no because she had the same amount of alcohol in her as he did.

Well, a woman who has the same amount of alcohol as the man is more drunk, of course ---- "candy is dandy but likker is quicker." I don't suppose anyone here will care to defend the use of Rohypnol to drug a woman. Buying her drinks, though? What about when a woman is unconscious? Is that rape? I guess so, since the whole issue is about consent: if she is unconscious, she can't say no. So she didn't have a choice. Does that seem obvious to everyone?

I guess men here one and all will say, drunk is fair: if she didn't want to get drunk and passionate, she shouldn't put the drinks in her mouth. Okay, okay, I suppose I agree. Reluctantly. That Likker is Quicker Ogden Nash line resonates through the years, somehow. It IS manipulation, but I suppose it isn't quite rape. Not very nice, though.

I really should be studying; I need to go; no, don't; we shouldn't......

I guess I'd support a woman making a charge on this basis of being overpowered, overpersuaded, but I wouldn't be happy about it. I myself think there is a lot to be said for a fierce NO!, a siren-like shriek that really gets his attention, and grabbing the purse and leaving the apartment at speed. But then, I have a strong personality and was never very likely to be raped.

What about these girls who are very passive, they don't want to hurt feelings, cause a scene, be loud, they want to be liked? Like Kobe Bryant's accuser, inching herself toward the door, but too late? I'm asking. Women like me or typhonblue, strong personalities, we're never going to be raped --- such men would steer clear. They're looking for little Miss Pleaser. What about them? What do women have to do before any man would agree it was clear, they definitely didn't consent?

Just put your mouse pointer over the icon and a message will tell you what it means. The icon you inquired of is called "bare it." Which is what Kobe might have to do if he is put through a sex offender program.